3 ms·
It's weird how this article treats Git and Github as synonymous. Github's rails bug really had nothing to do with Git itself.
by aiscott 15y ago
It's weird how this article treats Git and Github as synonymous.
Github's rails bug really had nothing to do with Git itself.
- chimeracoder 15y agoThis is the biggest problem with the article - if you're using GitHub as a reason to argue that Git is bad, then you don't know enough about what Git really is to make that judgement. The fact that Git is a DVCS has nothing to do with the fact that the Rails developers failed to fix a bug on their platform (Rails), which the service that you happen to use to host Git (GitHub) happens to use as well. Sure, you could use this as an argument to switch to another Git hosting solution (BitBucket, self-hosted), but this could just as easily have happened with a SVN host using Rails....
- aaronblohowiak 15y agoThere was not a rails bug! It is that way by design. Now, it is a terrible default but it was not a bug.
- mcdillon 15y agoDesigned bugs are still bugs.
- aaronblohowiak 15y agoNo, one is naïveté and the other is ignorance. Big difference.
- aiscott 15y agoIt was an unintended consequence of Github's use of rails. So I think my characterization (Github's rails bug) is fair.